User talk:Charlesdrakew/Archives/2016/November

Hey there

Hi, could you tell me what needs to be fixed in regards to your message regarding Lothian Buses, I'm new to editing large pieces of information , I was simply showing the services and logo's and information about each service, I have entered this information in good faith but could tell me how to fix this, Thanks :) . IDKIWL435495 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We do not include lists of services because Wikipedia is not a guide. These are better found at bus company websites where they are likely to be up to date. Company logos are used very sparingly to meet fair use, usually only one that matches the page title.Charles (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

So why have you only reverted my edit - out of date information about Airlink is still there, that is a service, ditto with the Lothian Country Buses and East Coast Buses After investigating , I Have found that many other articles on bus companies have a list of services. It is providing information, that I have made reference to and is up to date I honestly do not see the Issue when many other bus company articles have this section. IDKIWL435495 (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not promotional?

"Highest environmental accolade, in recognition of Bangladesh's far-reaching initiatives" does not seem promotional? 80.168.198.77 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is what the reliable UN source says. Factual not promotional.Charles (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Corporate career of Mohommed Ali Shah

Hello.

Early you removed some stuff from Corporate career of Mohommed Ali Shah while I added a link in its support. If you read properly the write up of the link I have added, you will surely understand that it's a true. By the way I added it again and hope you will not remove it again. --Shivam Roy (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Atheism

Hi Charles I'd like to discuss the lead changes you reverted on topic -criticism of atheism-. They appeared to me to be relatively uncontroversial, though you flagged them as needing discussion. If this is not the correct discussion method, please let me know. KScidmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by KScidmore (talk • contribs) 19:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You need to be aware that the lead sections of articles such have this have been honed to their present form by lengthy discussions on the article talkpage to establish a consensus. You cannot expect to turn up as a new user and just rewrite them. If you think the consensus version needs to be changed you must discuss it at the article talkpage.Charles (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

An explanation for the changes was placed on the article talkpage, but you reverted while providing no objections concerning content. Are you acting in an official capacity? The lead section (and much of the topic) appears neglected and disjoint from carelessly added content. The summary of content does not reflect the growth of the topic. If several small incremental changes are made and there are no objections offered, hasn't a consensus been reached? If you reverted with a stated reason then we could have a consensus discussion on the particular points. Where's the problem? The changes were made incrementally each with an explanation to permit point by point objections to each change with the hope that a revert with objection could be followed by consensus discussion, when needed. If you are acting in an official capacity then no problem. As I said, this topic looks neglected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KScidmore (talk • contribs) 00:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No I do not have an official capacity. (It used to be five pints). I see your edits have now been reverted by another experienced editor who says you need to discuss this. You have only been here one day so take time to learn how things work before trying to rewrite a controversial article.Charles (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I understand now and appreciate your input. I can now see what you were trying to do, and now that I understand better, I must say that I now approve. This particular topic looks a bit like a battleground, being rather choppy and disjoint from what looked like imprecise and in some cases careless additions. My first impression was that nobody was at the helm. Obviously that's not the case and this controversial topic makes the function you were performing both necessary and beneficial.

KSci (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism and the talk topic about Pascals wager

Charles, I will once against ask for input from other editors, but how long would you like this proposed change to sit without comment before you will not once again revert?

KSci (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

For a formal request for comment the required time is 30 days, twice the time since your account was created. On an informal basis at least a week would be reasonable. Having been away just four days and finding you have removed the text again I am close to reporting you for edit warring.Charles (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)